In an administrative litigation seeking an order for remedy or a decision of rejection by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 42 of the Trade Union Act or a revocation of a decision of review by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 43, whether the decision of stay of execution under Article 23(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act is a stay of execution (affirmative)

The provisions of Article 44 of the Trade Union Act and Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act stipulate the principle of the so-called suspension of execution against the order for remedy, dismissal or retrial ruling by the Labor Relations Commission, and the person who files an administrative lawsuit seeking the order for remedy or dismissal by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 42 of the Trade Union Act, or the revocation of the new trial ruling by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 43, may seek the suspension of execution against the above order for remedy, unless the requirements under Article 23 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act exist.

Articles 23(2) and 23(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 42, 43, and 44 of the Trade Union Act, Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act

Supreme Court Order 85F1 dated May 22, 1985 (Gong1985,1008) dated March 8, 1991; Order 90Du23 dated March 8, 1991 (Dong)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Red-Ick, a counterpart incorporated foundation

Seoul High Court Order 90Du366 Dated November 22, 1990

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The provisions of Article 44 of the Trade Union Act and Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act stipulate the principle of suspension of enforcement against an order for remedy, dismissal, or retrial ruling by the Labor Relations Commission, and they do not purport to deny the suspension of execution under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, a person who files an administrative lawsuit to seek an order for remedy or dismissal by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 42 of the Trade Union Act, or revocation of a retrial ruling by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 43, may seek suspension of execution of the above remedy order as long as the requirements under Article 23(2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act exist, and even after examining the records, there is no error in the court below’s decision to prevent any irreparable damage caused to the other party due to the execution of the retrial ruling in this case, and there is no possibility that the above suspension of execution may not have a serious impact on the public welfare. Thus, there is no reason to

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)